Tuesday, January 24, 2012

On Newt Gingrich and the National Review Romney Super PAC


I am having a difficult time understanding how you have trained more vitriol on Gingrich in six short months then you have on Obama over the past three years or that Romney's Super PAC has fired at him in the last 16 days.
It is becoming increasingly hard to follow the twisted logic in some of your arguments. I'm reminded that being a Conservative means not looking at our political representatives as messianic figures. I'm reminded that ALL of the candidates currently in the race are flawed, and yet there has been less said about the parabola most of Ron Paul's debate answers follow than the unquestionable lack of Newt's viability.

Even the Tea Party has been pretty straight-forward about the fact that they will throw their full support behind the Republican nominee, regardless of who that is. I am having difficulty understanding your unequivocal entrenchment against Newt because all your words are recorded for future reference. What do you do to not look like a flip-flopping Romney or someone lacking any seriousness or very little relevance (i.e.Ron Paul) if Gingrich gets the nomination? How will you pivot? Or will you continue stating that he's "not ideal", he's not "our" guy. "You voters are making a big mistake, but by all means, get excited even though we've gone above and beyond the call of the fourth estate to demoralize you about this nominee and the process" and "It's your suicide America. Go vote for him in November anyway"?

Right now you sound imperious and petulant about the fact that voters; American citizens are making choices that run contrary to your "expert" opinions. You come across sounding fairly elitist. None of you are experts on the matter of eking out an existence outside of the Beltway and in the real middle class. Perhaps voters are voting their conscience and how it relates to what is important to them. Wouldn't that be a novel concept. What would the Founding Fathers say about that?

I will keep my subscription until I get the issue that reads, "Newt's Your President Now Even Though We Warned You. Sayonara America" along with the article by Lowry lamenting those bygone, halcyon days of the Obama administration, another by Goldberg remaining hopeful that American's will get their sense back in the summer and run a recall campaign a la the labor unions v. Scott Walker and the one pager behind the back gate by Steyn comparing Newt's inauguration to some arcane Greek tragedy and the final decline of America to the maple syrup from his beloved Vermont, inevitable but slow and perhaps not as sweet.

I'll keep that issue on file next to my letter to cancel my subscription. Perhaps that's what you fear most. If there is a conservative agenda being competently advanced in Washington D.C. by a House and Senate majority and unimpeded by Obama's veto that people will stop reading National Review because the storm of radical progressives will seem to have passed.

By the way, I do that. I cancel subscriptions. I just mailed Esquire their $4.99 annual subscription offer reminding them that I canceled theirs years ago, not because I had too much reading material but because they made some idiotic editorial decisions that caused me to lose interest.

In the meantime perhaps "The Editors" can have a moment of transparency and explain why a Newt Gingrich Presidency is more detestable to you than another term for Obama.

I've heard it said that Republicans find a way to self-destruct. I thought the Conservatives among them were different. I guess those of you in the pundit class of the Conservative wing are really no different.

P.S. Not sure if Melissa O'Sullivan's article is more reactive or redemptive for the sake of NR's Editorial direction but it surely is instructive to the entire Newt bashing crowd


No comments: